10 part of the brief to such remedies before the competent authority and that the Ministry of the Interior is merely mentioned as an example. Therefore, in keeping with the obligation of probity and good faith that must prevail in international proceedings, any evasive or ambiguous statement such as that made by the Government in this regard must be disallowed. d. The effective remedy referred to in Article 25 of the Convention must be exercised before judges and courts; it is jurisdictional in nature, inasmuch as it may not be lodged with the Ministry of the Interior since that would make it a petition before an organ outside the judicial system. e. Moreover, María Elena Loayza-Tamayo raised the res judicata objection before the court, which had dismissed it after hearing the opinion of the Ministry of the Interior. This means that the latter was aware of the objection and ignored it, so that there would be no point in a further request to the same Ministry of the Interior if its representative did not take the first one into consideration. f. Also, if under the State of Emergency, protective remedies were not allowed on behalf of those arrested on charges of treason and terrorism, there would be no point in appealing to the Ministry of the Interior in such circumstances, since any petition on that score would be doomed to failure. 39. The Commission dispatched to this Court, together with its brief of December 29, 1995, a photocopy of the October 6, 1995 judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of Justice confirming the sentence passed on María Elena Loayza-Tamayo for the crime of terrorism. For this reason, the Commission maintains that this ruling shows that “the preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies is unfounded.” VI 40. The Court wishes to stress that it has established criteria that must be taken into consideration in this case. Indeed, the generally accepted principles of international law, to which the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies refers, indicate, first, that this a rule that may be waived, either expressly or by implication, by the State having the right to invoke it, as this Court has already recognized [see Viviana Gallardo et al. (Judgment of November 13, 1981), No. G 101/81. Series A, para. 26]. Second, the objection asserting nonexhaustion of domestic remedies, to be timely, must be made at an early stage of the proceedings by the State entitled to make it, lest a waiver of the requirement be presumed. Third, the State claiming non-exhaustion has an obligation to prove that domestic remedies remain to be exhausted and that they are effective (Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 88; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 2, para. 87; Godínez Cruz Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 3, para. 90; Gangaram Panday Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of December 4, 1991. Series C No. 12, para. 38; Neira Alegría et al., Preliminary Objections, Judgment of December 11, 1991. Series C No. 13, para. 30 and Castillo Páez Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of January 30, 1996. Series C No. 24, para. 40).